Perfectly said! And perfectly demonstrated by the host, who obviously simply doesnt want climate change to be real - for understandable reasons, as we all wished it wasnt real.
@@hooplehead1019 It hasn't anything to do with denying climate change. People just don't believe the climate will be our doom in 10 years and that smaller individual countries in the richer part of the world shouldn't need to pay insane "green" taxes so that they can barely experience the standard of living they had earlier. Tyson has even said exactly this and doesn't disagree with my point I just made. Just watch the recent Tyson discussion with Ben Shapiro. I live in Sweden, one of the best countries when it comes to being efficient with pollution. We already have an extremely "green" industry, yes we do have other extremely difficult issues atm with mass immigration etc, but if we're focusing specifically on the climate topic. Yet, even tho we have such great climate policy, we still today introduce new insane taxes. The fuel for our cars is about 70% tax, plastic bag costs have just doubled thanks to taxes (even though these plastics NEVER make it to the ocean, 90% of it comes from Asia and Africa, not Sweden). The list goes on and on, and yet we want to disband our Nuclear reactors? Wtf is this stupidity? The issue is that some of the politicians of the western countries believe that they can solve a GLOBAL issue with LOCAL policies. It's not in Sweden or Germany, or really any of the western countries that we need to focus our biggest efforts into, it's primarily China and India. We should never deny these countries better living standards, but we should help them to construct and maintain nuclear energy which is the safest and most reliable energy source we have right now. Aswell as researching into getting lower energy requirements for industry through optimization. The climate topic is currently being used by politicians to just have another reason to increase taxes, instead of actually trying to solve the problem, which noone denies exists. It's become extremely politicised, which is of course detrimental as this has to do with science and actual objective facts, not ideology or morals. That is the issue as far as I can tell and that is why I don't believe these fake scientists who are really just journalists/activists claiming to be experts that keep saying that civilization will end in 10 years. They've said this for so many decades now and nothing has happened yet.
@@AtroFear 1. I referred to Tyson´s interview partner when I said he obviously tries to ignore and bend and doubt science because he simply wishes climate change to be not real. 2. "Our doom in 10 years" is a straw man that no scientist would agree with such an undefined statement. What scientists say is very simple: The cost of adaptation to a stronger global warming are much, much higher than the costs for mitigation and subsequent adaptation to a milder global warming. Thats the simple decision we have to make: Do you want to pay "insane taxes" now and "barely keep" the standard of living. Or do you - and our children´s generation REALLY want to struggle in the future? Its a simple, yet hard-to-overcome case of "delayed gratification" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification , even for adults. Thats the core point of the energy transition debate for non-invested people like us. (Ofc the corportate losers of this transition, fossil fuel companies, have rational interests in preventing or slowing down the transition - and they do very well with a couple of millions of PR money - as you can see at the people´s arguments that have come directly from the offices of industry-run PR offices for thirty years now). 3. Once one accepts this, one enters the last stage of trying to evade action: The responsibility-shifting game. Every country, every industry, every individual can play it. Its really silly. Every country on earth, every industry, every individual CANNOT substantially mitigate climate change ON ITS OWN. Thats why we have Paris 2015, where every country pledged to do its best to reduce emissions to successfully reach
@ammar siddiqui The bible has helped me many times, like the time I needed to swat a bee that flew into my house and the time I needed something to level my projector.
I admire and respect Neal deGrass Tyson’s intelligence and enjoy listening to his more often refreshing and insightful scientific tropes. By no means is he a platform for hero worshiping, but he is spot on about ‘Bigfoot’.
Speaking on evidence. The way ppl think these days you don't even need that for certain ppl to believe it. Just make a UA-cam channel and put the thought in their heads. Believe me, a lot of ppl will go for it
It annoys the McFuck out of me when people call the US 'Merica' or America. It's as though they think we live on the entire continent. I get that Neil is poking fun at said people, which is great.
@Adam Price I'm Australian and I live in the US. Back home, we call Australia 'Straya'. Shortening something is fine but taking credit for an entire continent and ignoring all of the other countries in it but your own is, well, selfish. I once heard a US citizen say that Mexicans needed to leave the US because only American's belong here. I don't think he realized that Mexico, like the US, is part of North America. Obviously, I know that not all people from the US are this ignorant or arrogant but I think if more people called it by its correct name, there would be less misunderstanding and some may learn to appreciate all countries more instead of just their own.
Science has done a lot of good for the human race, we all use it constantly throughout our day. However science runs into many issues when trying to understand some things while only using our 5 senses. Our bodies are only capable of interacting with very small portions of the world around us. We can only hear, touch and see certain frequencies, anything outside of this limited range are assumed to "not exist" “The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” ― Nikola Tesla
I love NDT and always find myself intrigued by everything he says in regards to science, that being said, I will not sit through the torture of listening to Dennis Miller for more than a second. The guy is a loon in every sense and his politics are extremely questionable.
IMO it's strange to find Dennis lucent and reasonable, with all the absurdist, self-congratulatory baggage he carries. He used to think himself a real wit. I'd qualify that with "half-."
You talking to me, Steve? You're entitled to your opinion, but if you want to get all judgmental where you're clearly out of your depth, I'll have to pass. Out.
We all wish magical, mystical, mythological, things existed in this universe, at least at one point or another, but it amazes me what some people truely believe, without a doubt, get so upset, take it so personal, if they read, watch, hear, a different viewpoint...
The amount of forest in the U.S is 818,814,000 acres. 1 football field = 1.32 acres. That's equivalent to 620,313,613 football fields. Okay Neil we should have found them by now.
Normally I’m not a big fan of Tyson. I have found him to have a toxic attitude towards people of faith in the past. He seems more measured and quite reasonable in this discussion. Mathematics and logic are the foundations of science but cannot be proven or established by science. Science presupposes math and logic and to try and prove them by science would be to argue in a circle. Rationality is the necessary prerequisite to science and it is a transcendent enterprise. This should tell us something about the limits of imperial science and a materialistic world view. Science is a very important and satisfying enterprise but we need to remember the transcendent foundations of our ability to do science. Faith/religion and science are different categories of knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific book. That should be clear. That said, Science can tell us something about the transcendent and the transcendent, metaphysical, spiritual can have some underlying ways of supporting the scientific enterprise. It was a huge mistake by the church in the past to try and fit the natural world to their interpretation of scripture and it is a mistake to outright dismiss faith and religion because of science.
"Mathematics and logic are the foundations of science but cannot be proven or established by science" That is a ridiculous statement. Science is about proving and disproving a theory, testing said theory by multiple people around the world, tested in different ways, tested again and if the conclusions come out the same, this becomes our objective truth. Should someone prove otherwise, Science can change their stance and Science is always evolving and making new discoveries. It doesn't mean Science has all the answers and sometimes "I dont know" is an honest answer. Jumping to "god did it" is NOT proof or evidence or anything useful. However you can apply your ridiculous statement to religion and god. Until you can prove god exists that isn't "a book said so", blind faith is simply making assumptions that you know the answer when no one does nor can it be proven or disproven. I'll take Science over space wizard any day.
@@andrelafrance116 like a universe that came out of nothing? People who believe in God still believe in science but people who do not believe in God can only believe in materiality. For the materialist, they have to believe in all kinds of contradictions. You have to believe that logic is the result of mindless, random, and unguided processes. Math and logic cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes math and logic and to try and prove them using science would be a circular argument. Morality is unscientific. Aesthetic judgements are unscientific. Metaphysical beliefs like a belief in the past or other minds are all outside of science and material concepts of the universe. Even science it self is full of beliefs that you must accept on faith in order to do science. One example is Eisenstein’s theory of relativity that says that the speed of light is constant and in a one way direction. There is no proof of that and you must accept it on faith to hold to the theory. Can you not walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. You cannot live life consistent with a materialistic world view for one minute but a belief in God is intellectually sound.
He said the good thing about science is that the player doesnt matter..I wonder what he thinks about martial arts...At least in martial arts we are being taught that self discipline and restraint are a good thing if we wish to minimize unnecessary damage..Scientist dont practice enough restraint which is why many of the problems we are facing today is the result of our own carelessness...
I see this went over your head. He wasn’t saying the person doesn’t matter. It’s in regards to a scientific truth versus someone’s belief in the opposite. Putting restraints on scientists is exactly what religions have done in history.
@@timterrell8678 Who told you that religion has oppressed science ....?Ancient scientist studied the brain and religion is the result of scientific manipulation of the mind....These people who really practice these religions scientifically on a higher level are aware of what they are doing...They not superstitious...They know how to control people...I understand this clearly....What about you? Do you understand what psychology is..? Do you think that psychology is based in religion or the other way around?
@@novelcoronaheads History told me religion has oppressed science. It’s a fact. www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
@@timterrell8678 what I just said went over your head....Let me clarify...Religion is a science...its in the realm of psychology...Scientist do compete with each other...but psychologists have the upper hand because they are the ones who manipulate the way we perceive the world...Which I agree that religion does distort the scientific method but all im saying is that religion itself is a product of the scientific method being used to control the mind...So its all science...and thats why I say that scientist need more discipline and or better guidance...It will be too late for us by the time we realize this judging by the way things look...Religions is a problem for us today because our ancestors were practicing malevolent psychology(religion) in the past...Too bad most people today are the victims of these experiments which is why they dont know any better than you do about the science of religious indoctrination...
@@timterrell8678 read all the history books you want...but if you dont use your our brain somebody else will use it for you...Peace and blessings...remember what im telling you and share with others...
When Dennis Miller asked “Isn’t science doing their own inquisition now?” Right. I remember the science symposium when they tortured the religious leaders until they confessed of making up the bible, then burned them at the stake in the town square. Such a false equivalency.
Azzir Don yes he is he made Mike Tyson lose to Buster Douglas and they haven't spoken in years because of that. If you watch Mike Tyson mysteries he mentions it in an episode
Yeah he pushed the religion element to strongly and came out as a climate change denier which is disappointing. Dennis Miller was great on SNL in the 80's and his Black and White HBO special. Sad what became of his career. He was once a promising comedian.
Jeff Meldrum thinks Sasquatch is an ape when anyone who has seen it up-close says it looks more human than ape. Yet he ignores them. Matt Moneymaker does the same thing. If Neil says "the existence of Sasquatch is unlikely," then he is also saying that the 100,000+ witnesses are 100% wrong. Well, when in the history of man have that many people been wrong when seeing, hearing and smelling the same thing? Neil reminds me of a lawyer who is trying to get over on someone. His attitude is more subjective than objective...just watch how he uses his hands in conversation. I see him as intelligent, but not wise.
Science is when you have questions and you are looking for answers. Religion is when you have the answers but are desperately trying to avoid questions. ;-)
Check out UA-cam vid "The Zodiac Road" if you want weird unexplained phenomena, science needs to explain not just this video but also the other videos on this channel. It's as weird as it gets!
I had a old truck for sale in 1999. It had no electronics. Sold it to a Y2K fearing couple. I even tried to convince them of the BS of it, to no avail. I got full price, but no gouging.
Perhaps not religion as such and science but science and a belief in a supernatural being; why couldn't God or whatever one may call this being have laid down the laws of physics and determined how it is all to work yet still give us the Ten Commandments and, when he saw that we were sinful creatures, give us His Son, Jesus, to die for us on the Cross to satisfy our sin debt. In other words, why must there be such a dichotomy between science and a belief in God?
What kind of law can be based on pure science. Law is mostly about aspiration and expectation that requires regulation. They are predominately socioeconomic/moral phenomena. How can you introduce scientific determinism into this if you cannot even predict reliably who will win elections based on your/any data.
What people don't seem to grasp, is that even if some of the science is not accurate, it does not give more credence to superstitious or religious nonsense.
But evidently , all those superstitious/ religious people only come to science talks like these to find even one reason to go back to their original beliefs while ignoring numerous faults in their belief.
GOD THE FATHER will deal with them as a GOOD FATHER deals with someone trying to give HIS under age children perverted doctrines, it amazing they never bring up prophecy.
The earliest Mayan pyramids triple germination rates of grain placed on the altars predawn from amplified geostatics, they still work. Later pyramids don't have this feature, so, "religion" went from scientist-priests to political ones by the time of the ball courts. Religions are based upon such, spiritualism is based upon a Spirit world, Shamans, Healers and such have an intimate connection to this, the Dalai Lama is one of these.
@@CaptWesStarwind Your reply sums up your astute behavior, have you anything substantial to any topic other than laying on the pixies? Geostatics not your cup of pixie tea there on the keyboard ?/? The pyramids still work, over 1,000-years of service, something Monsanto-Bayer can't do.
Being that science cannot be all knowing they make no claim that truths are fully understood but rather provisional while a religion claims to have an absolute knowledge of the understanding of all truths. Being that I accept that my own understanding is limited I feel much more comfortable with the provisional truths of the understanding of science. How can I comfortably put my trust in the all knowing truths of a religion when my own limited understanding is not capable of putting my trust in such absolutes. At the very least I will not impose such absolutes on others.
John 1:1 HOLY BIBLE defines God as Reason. Logos as New Testament was written in Greek. Don't you believe in reason? No! We do not believe in reason, we know reason exists. God's very name means I exist / I AM. "Before Abraham was I AM " John 8:58 HOLY BIBLE. I AM Neil degrasse. You use God's name to state that you are a RATIONAL being.
Ya like when Neil said at 2.22 that we would "ALL" starve to death and only 22 seconds later he reconfirmed his genius by saying we would "ALL" be dead now...Brilliant!!!
Religious/political leaders are not dumb or superstitious but careless nevertheless....Its their subjects that are being mislead....The leaders know how to (act) in front of people to get these responses...and somehow I think Neil knows this...(@Tim Terrell)lol...
I personally think that if there is to be a god, then the bible should be 100% accurate if he is the all powerful. Things were changed by Christian’s for a reason. Which for me personally makes it difficult to follow and believe
@@seanjones2456 Absolutely, but I see aspects of science (the groupthink and the politics of science) following in the steps of religion/dogma. I think environmentalism is an evolutionary convergence of traditional religion and is a threat to (the process of) science. Even writing this I feel some back pressure; it is as if I am a heretic. And the process of science is far from a 'free market' of ideas; it is monopolised by 'big ed'.
@@fractalnomics I gotta disagree. Science has no dogma, it just happens to be the most reliable way to understand the natural world. The internet is probably the final nail in the coffin of religion. There will always be people that have been indoctrinated and others that are poorly educated, and religion seems to thrive in both of these groups. I look forward to the day when we look at any god the way that most of the world looks at Zeus or Odin. All of us are atheists about some gods, it's just that some of us go one god further.
“Science” or, the scientific method, is the most reliable pathway to find what conforms with reality. It’s not an entity, it’s an action. By definition it can only improve with time. How will it run us into the ground when science produced medicine?
6:52 Look at all the burdens he put on the 40% of PhD's who claim a belief in a god. He says they must believe in a personal god who is involved in their lives and hears and acts on their prayers. He's saying 40% of PhD's are essentially Christian fundamentalists, which means upwards of 90% of PhD's are everything else, including agnostic.
The PHD's are not likely fundamentalists. Fundies believe that the Bible is absolute truth, word for word. The first chapter of Genesis has several dozen contradictions alone. And don't even get me started about Noah's Ark. A large number of these people have never even read the Bible.
www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems Let's stop pretending that peer review works. What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws." This raised a number of disquieting possibilities. Were these, in fact, seriously flawed papers that got accepted and published? Can bad papers squeak through depending on who reviews them? Did some papers get in because of the prestige of their authors or affiliations? At the very least, the experiment suggested the peer review process was unnervingly inconsistent. What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws." This raised a number of disquieting possibilities. Were these, in fact, seriously flawed papers that got accepted and published? Can bad papers squeak through depending on who reviews them? Did some papers get in because of the prestige of their authors or affiliations? At the very least, the experiment suggested the peer review process was unnervingly inconsistent.
I see Neil DeGrasse Tyson in any thumbnail? I Click. We need more educators like him.
No we dont. This guy is an annoying self centered person who thinks no was is more educated than him.
@@MuhammadNafay 🤡🤡🤡🤡
@@MuhammadNafay try that again, only next time try and write a coherent sentence.
@@CaptWesStarwind "no was is more..." Means no one is more ....
I speak Arabic.
@@rasadams9034 Cool, tell the halfwit that he's speaking English, not Arabic then.
The whole point of science is to remove our biases and misconceptions to see what is actually true, not what you want or believe to be true
Perfectly said! And perfectly demonstrated by the host, who obviously simply doesnt want climate change to be real - for understandable reasons, as we all wished it wasnt real.
Exactly! Well said.
@@hooplehead1019 It hasn't anything to do with denying climate change. People just don't believe the climate will be our doom in 10 years and that smaller individual countries in the richer part of the world shouldn't need to pay insane "green" taxes so that they can barely experience the standard of living they had earlier. Tyson has even said exactly this and doesn't disagree with my point I just made. Just watch the recent Tyson discussion with Ben Shapiro.
I live in Sweden, one of the best countries when it comes to being efficient with pollution. We already have an extremely "green" industry, yes we do have other extremely difficult issues atm with mass immigration etc, but if we're focusing specifically on the climate topic. Yet, even tho we have such great climate policy, we still today introduce new insane taxes. The fuel for our cars is about 70% tax, plastic bag costs have just doubled thanks to taxes (even though these plastics NEVER make it to the ocean, 90% of it comes from Asia and Africa, not Sweden). The list goes on and on, and yet we want to disband our Nuclear reactors? Wtf is this stupidity?
The issue is that some of the politicians of the western countries believe that they can solve a GLOBAL issue with LOCAL policies. It's not in Sweden or Germany, or really any of the western countries that we need to focus our biggest efforts into, it's primarily China and India. We should never deny these countries better living standards, but we should help them to construct and maintain nuclear energy which is the safest and most reliable energy source we have right now. Aswell as researching into getting lower energy requirements for industry through optimization.
The climate topic is currently being used by politicians to just have another reason to increase taxes, instead of actually trying to solve the problem, which noone denies exists. It's become extremely politicised, which is of course detrimental as this has to do with science and actual objective facts, not ideology or morals. That is the issue as far as I can tell and that is why I don't believe these fake scientists who are really just journalists/activists claiming to be experts that keep saying that civilization will end in 10 years. They've said this for so many decades now and nothing has happened yet.
@@AtroFear 1. I referred to Tyson´s interview partner when I said he obviously tries to ignore and bend and doubt science because he simply wishes climate change to be not real.
2. "Our doom in 10 years" is a straw man that no scientist would agree with such an undefined statement. What scientists say is very simple: The cost of adaptation to a stronger global warming are much, much higher than the costs for mitigation and subsequent adaptation to a milder global warming. Thats the simple decision we have to make: Do you want to pay "insane taxes" now and "barely keep" the standard of living. Or do you - and our children´s generation REALLY want to struggle in the future? Its a simple, yet hard-to-overcome case of "delayed gratification" en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_gratification , even for adults. Thats the core point of the energy transition debate for non-invested people like us. (Ofc the corportate losers of this transition, fossil fuel companies, have rational interests in preventing or slowing down the transition - and they do very well with a couple of millions of PR money - as you can see at the people´s arguments that have come directly from the offices of industry-run PR offices for thirty years now).
3. Once one accepts this, one enters the last stage of trying to evade action: The responsibility-shifting game. Every country, every industry, every individual can play it. Its really silly. Every country on earth, every industry, every individual CANNOT substantially mitigate climate change ON ITS OWN. Thats why we have Paris 2015, where every country pledged to do its best to reduce emissions to successfully reach
@Hey Man Thank you! Im still a bit unsure about my English, so comments like yours help a lot to assure me I can get my points understood. :)
Neil is one of my favorite humans. I never tire of listening to him. Birds of a feather as they say.
So ur an astro physics too
@@tye9713 No I meant that we both have trolls respond to our comments.
I just want Cosmos season 2 please
And have Carl Sagan's wife Ann Druyan
co-host it with Neil.
@@ngc6603 Ann is great!
Very insightful comments from Dr. Tyson here. We're lucky to have him
8:30 'Murica
- Neil DeGrasse Tyson 2019
Always a pleasure to hear Mr Tyson speak!
Larry King SURE looks a lot like Dennis Miller. I think I've entered some other dimension.
Yea wasn't Larry King working for RT?? He pussied out and went crawling back to corporate media?
Coward
The bible is 100% accurate, especially when thrown at close range.
@ammar siddiqui The bible has helped me many times, like the time I needed to swat a bee that flew into my house and the time I needed something to level my projector.
Depends on the size of the bible then.
the Bible...chloroform in print
@ammar siddiqui ammar, I find even more uses for the Quran !
Raymond Stemmer : I have a use for you as well ,dogs food .
Larry King is looking good for his age lol
Larry King looks alot like Dennis Miller !
He was drawn on the glass panel behind the two of them...
Love Dr. Tyson's scientific passion. Every time he shows up in my suggestions I watch and I'm always informed AND entertained..always.
I admire and respect Neal deGrass Tyson’s intelligence and enjoy listening to his more often refreshing and insightful scientific tropes. By no means is he a platform for hero worshiping, but he is spot on about ‘Bigfoot’.
Oh snap! Footage of Bigfoot in the background at 10:10!
lol
And de Grasse Tyson missed it! Oh if he had only turned around, then he'd be a believer too.
And as always, it's unclear, shaded, and at a distance lol
That's just Reynolds from Accounting
Big? Check.
Hairy? Check.
Blurry? Check.
Walks with an odd pacing? Check.
Reynolds = Bigfoot
Speaking on evidence. The way ppl think these days you don't even need that for certain ppl to believe it.
Just make a UA-cam channel and put the thought in their heads.
Believe me, a lot of ppl will go for it
@Hey Man ywah sadly thats true but they are liers and deceivers
NDG is as wise as he is intelligent, and it's always a privilege to hear him speak.
I love when Neil says "Merica"
It annoys the McFuck out of me when people call the US 'Merica' or America. It's as though they think we live on the entire continent. I get that Neil is poking fun at said people, which is great.
@Adam Price I'm Australian and I live in the US. Back home, we call Australia 'Straya'. Shortening something is fine but taking credit for an entire continent and ignoring all of the other countries in it but your own is, well, selfish.
I once heard a US citizen say that Mexicans needed to leave the US because only American's belong here. I don't think he realized that Mexico, like the US, is part of North America. Obviously, I know that not all people from the US are this ignorant or arrogant but I think if more people called it by its correct name, there would be less misunderstanding and some may learn to appreciate all countries more instead of just their own.
@2:35 Thanos: Am I a joke to you?
The battle between Miller's eyebrows and Neil's lips will be legendary!
I love you Neil.
I love the big foot story in this video
When will cosmos season 2 release, I am eagerly waiting
Science has done a lot of good for the human race, we all use it constantly throughout our day.
However science runs into many issues when trying to understand some things while only using our 5 senses.
Our bodies are only capable of interacting with very small portions of the world around us.
We can only hear, touch and see certain frequencies, anything outside of this limited range are assumed to "not exist"
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.”
― Nikola Tesla
What is there that is non-physical?
The radio guy from Joe Dirt is still doing stuff? Lol
just awesome!
El Tio Tomas mas grande del mundo. Translate that and you will agreed.
The most important question in science is 'Why bother wearing a warm jacket only to roll your sleeves up?'
I love NDT and always find myself intrigued by everything he says in regards to science, that being said, I will not sit through the torture of listening to Dennis Miller for more than a second. The guy is a loon in every sense and his politics are extremely questionable.
IMO it's strange to find Dennis lucent and reasonable, with all the absurdist, self-congratulatory baggage he carries. He used to think himself a real wit. I'd qualify that with "half-."
You talking to me, Steve? You're entitled to your opinion, but if you want to get all judgmental where you're clearly out of your depth, I'll have to pass. Out.
I love him
Neil is a legend
What's the most close-minded religion on Earth? Science.
finally, unpopular yet proper comedic truth
@@brandonalmendares1642 i love ruffling Neil's feathers, thanks :)
I hope the good lord finds him and bring him near and opens his eyes.
What good would it do him to go crazy? We have enough crazy religionists, already.
You are proving his point
Science and faith are not mutually exclusive.
We all wish magical, mystical, mythological, things existed in this universe, at least at one point or another, but it amazes me what some people truely believe, without a doubt, get so upset, take it so personal, if they read, watch, hear, a different viewpoint...
they should make a movie and put it on netflix where society only operates on science n facts. i wonder what would look like
An episode from the 1960s Twilight Zone.
The amount of forest in the U.S is 818,814,000 acres. 1 football field = 1.32 acres. That's equivalent to 620,313,613 football fields. Okay Neil we should have found them by now.
One acre is exactly equal to 99% of 44,000 square feet. Just a little tidbit of info for you there.
Was that Bigfoot walking in the background at 10:08?
Tell Tyson's theory to the people around me and they will think I am nuts
In the thumbnail Neil remind me of Dangerfield! 🙂
Wow, that hair implant took decades off Larry!
whoa!. larry king got young!
plastic surgery my friend.
i don't know why that was funny, but it was
Love when he said the bible tells you how to go to heaven but not how heaven goes...
Normally I’m not a big fan of Tyson. I have found him to have a toxic attitude towards people of faith in the past. He seems more measured and quite reasonable in this discussion.
Mathematics and logic are the foundations of science but cannot be proven or established by science. Science presupposes math and logic and to try and prove them by science would be to argue in a circle. Rationality is the necessary prerequisite to science and it is a transcendent enterprise. This should tell us something about the limits of imperial science and a materialistic world view.
Science is a very important and satisfying enterprise but we need to remember the transcendent foundations of our ability to do science.
Faith/religion and science are different categories of knowledge. The Bible is not a scientific book. That should be clear. That said, Science can tell us something about the transcendent and the transcendent, metaphysical, spiritual can have some underlying ways of supporting the scientific enterprise.
It was a huge mistake by the church in the past to try and fit the natural world to their interpretation of scripture and it is a mistake to outright dismiss faith and religion because of science.
"Mathematics and logic are the foundations of science but cannot be proven or established by science" That is a ridiculous statement. Science is about proving and disproving a theory, testing said theory by multiple people around the world, tested in different ways, tested again and if the conclusions come out the same, this becomes our objective truth. Should someone prove otherwise, Science can change their stance and Science is always evolving and making new discoveries. It doesn't mean Science has all the answers and sometimes "I dont know" is an honest answer. Jumping to "god did it" is NOT proof or evidence or anything useful.
However you can apply your ridiculous statement to religion and god. Until you can prove god exists that isn't "a book said so", blind faith is simply making assumptions that you know the answer when no one does nor can it be proven or disproven. I'll take Science over space wizard any day.
Yes, people of faith, those who believe in absurdities, rather than believing in something that science can prove.
@@andrelafrance116 like a universe that came out of nothing? People who believe in God still believe in science but people who do not believe in God can only believe in materiality. For the materialist, they have to believe in all kinds of contradictions. You have to believe that logic is the result of mindless, random, and unguided processes. Math and logic cannot be proven by science. Science presupposes math and logic and to try and prove them using science would be a circular argument. Morality is unscientific. Aesthetic judgements are unscientific. Metaphysical beliefs like a belief in the past or other minds are all outside of science and material concepts of the universe. Even science it self is full of beliefs that you must accept on faith in order to do science. One example is Eisenstein’s theory of relativity that says that the speed of light is constant and in a one way direction. There is no proof of that and you must accept it on faith to hold to the theory.
Can you not walk and chew bubble gum at the same time. You cannot live life consistent with a materialistic world view for one minute but a belief in God is intellectually sound.
@@andrelafrance116 Science does not disapprove of the existence of god.
Merica
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Brilliant as always. Replace the interviewer PLEEEASE
I indulge with conspiracy theorists and I get that 'you are not open minded' a lot.
What a great mind!
He said the good thing about science is that the player doesnt matter..I wonder what he thinks about martial arts...At least in martial arts we are being taught that self discipline and restraint are a good thing if we wish to minimize unnecessary damage..Scientist dont practice enough restraint which is why many of the problems we are facing today is the result of our own carelessness...
I see this went over your head. He wasn’t saying the person doesn’t matter. It’s in regards to a scientific truth versus someone’s belief in the opposite.
Putting restraints on scientists is exactly what religions have done in history.
@@timterrell8678 Who told you that religion has oppressed science ....?Ancient scientist studied the brain and religion is the result of scientific manipulation of the mind....These people who really practice these religions scientifically on a higher level are aware of what they are doing...They not superstitious...They know how to control people...I understand this clearly....What about you? Do you understand what psychology is..? Do you think that psychology is based in religion or the other way around?
@@novelcoronaheads History told me religion has oppressed science. It’s a fact. www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-away-from-science
@@timterrell8678 what I just said went over your head....Let me clarify...Religion is a science...its in the realm of psychology...Scientist do compete with each other...but psychologists have the upper hand because they are the ones who manipulate the way we perceive the world...Which I agree that religion does distort the scientific method but all im saying is that religion itself is a product of the scientific method being used to control the mind...So its all science...and thats why I say that scientist need more discipline and or better guidance...It will be too late for us by the time we realize this judging by the way things look...Religions is a problem for us today because our ancestors were practicing malevolent psychology(religion) in the past...Too bad most people today are the victims of these experiments which is why they dont know any better than you do about the science of religious indoctrination...
@@timterrell8678 read all the history books you want...but if you dont use your our brain somebody else will use it for you...Peace and blessings...remember what im telling you and share with others...
when was the last time Larry King was on this show, seriously?
When Dennis Miller asked “Isn’t science doing their own inquisition now?” Right. I remember the science symposium when they tortured the religious leaders until they confessed of making up the bible, then burned them at the stake in the town square. Such a false equivalency.
Awesome
Religion = Oil & Science = water = (hard to mix) and both fun to study.
The beast Logic related to Sasquatch ever stated...
beast Logic is the best logic.
I see what you did there....
You misspelled best.
The real question here thats been bothering my mind is “ is neil degrasse tyson related to mike tyson?”
We're all related :)
Azzir Don yes he is he made Mike Tyson lose to Buster Douglas and they haven't spoken in years because of that. If you watch Mike Tyson mysteries he mentions it in an episode
Dennis Miller, a man discredited in all respects by his mere existence. So says this former (1987-93) fan.
Neil Tyson is a gentleman, and a scholar. Dennis Miller is more of a politician now.
Yeah he pushed the religion element to strongly and came out as a climate change denier which is disappointing. Dennis Miller was great on SNL in the 80's and his Black and White HBO special. Sad what became of his career. He was once a promising comedian.
He didn't work out so well as a commentator on Monday Night Football.
I think in 500 people will play dodgeball with asteroids.
Mental Health > Fan Fiction
Id say to Neil DeGrasse: have a discussion with Dr. Jeffery Meldrum about the existence of Bigfoot
Jeff Meldrum thinks Sasquatch is an ape when anyone who has seen it up-close says it looks more human than ape. Yet he ignores them. Matt Moneymaker does the same thing.
If Neil says "the existence of Sasquatch is unlikely," then he is also saying that the 100,000+ witnesses are 100% wrong. Well, when in the history of man have that many people been wrong when seeing, hearing and smelling the same thing?
Neil reminds me of a lawyer who is trying to get over on someone. His attitude is more subjective than objective...just watch how he uses his hands in conversation. I see him as intelligent, but not wise.
interesting choice of dennis miller as of an interview choice
What I would like to know is how did how Neil grow the hair on his forehead?
he is spittin
Larry's looking good...
So glad Doomsday is not in the bible.
yes it is
Matthew 24:14
Science is when you have questions and you are looking for answers. Religion is when you have the answers but are desperately trying to avoid questions. ;-)
6:05
Check out UA-cam vid "The Zodiac Road" if you want weird unexplained phenomena, science needs to explain not just this video but also the other videos on this channel. It's as weird as it gets!
06:09
The studio interior is kinda miserable, seems like they were really tight on money when setting it :)
I had a old truck for sale in 1999. It had no electronics. Sold it to a Y2K fearing couple. I even tried to convince them of the BS of it, to no avail. I got full price, but no gouging.
You should have gouged them.
Perhaps not religion as such and science but science and a belief in a supernatural being; why couldn't God or whatever one may call this being have laid down the laws of physics and determined how it is all to work yet still give us the Ten Commandments and, when he saw that we were sinful creatures, give us His Son, Jesus, to die for us on the Cross to satisfy our sin debt. In other words, why must there be such a dichotomy between science and a belief in God?
Because anything you add to the equation needs to be explained. You can't do that with something that has not met the burden of existing.
@@0LadyV0 Ma'am, kindly read my reply to Mr. Ragu inacan. Thank you most respectfully.
@@dennisnicholson952 I did. It's nonsense.
_People screaming, hooting and hollering ..._ hmm, I have to go to different conferences.
❤
Where is Larry King
What kind of law can be based on pure science. Law is mostly about aspiration and expectation that requires regulation. They are predominately socioeconomic/moral phenomena. How can you introduce scientific determinism into this if you cannot even predict reliably who will win elections based on your/any data.
What people don't seem to grasp, is that even if some of the science is not accurate, it does not give more credence to superstitious or religious nonsense.
But evidently , all those superstitious/ religious people only come to science talks like these to find even one reason to go back to their original beliefs while ignoring numerous faults in their belief.
Murcia
GOD THE FATHER will deal with them as a GOOD FATHER deals with someone trying to give HIS under age children perverted doctrines, it amazing they never bring up prophecy.
Dennis Miller taking over for Larry King? He he
IKR!
The earliest Mayan pyramids triple germination rates of grain placed on the altars predawn from amplified geostatics, they still work.
Later pyramids don't have this feature, so, "religion" went from scientist-priests to political ones by the time of the ball courts.
Religions are based upon such, spiritualism is based upon a Spirit world, Shamans, Healers and such have an intimate connection to this, the Dalai Lama is one of these.
And pixies are why flower petals open.
@@CaptWesStarwind That's replicable science, a peer reviewed book, are you a magician in pixie land with flowers in your nose?
@@ttmallard well you just seem to believe anything you hear, so why not believe in pixies as well?
@@ttmallard oh, by all means, share the paper and journal that published that Mayan pyramids increase germination.
@@CaptWesStarwind Your reply sums up your astute behavior, have you anything substantial to any topic other than laying on the pixies?
Geostatics not your cup of pixie tea there on the keyboard ?/?
The pyramids still work, over 1,000-years of service, something Monsanto-Bayer can't do.
40 %? It's worse than I thought.
REAL SCIENCE IS MEASURABLE OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE.
and that is not evolutionary science in the least. it's not "MEASURABLE OBSERVABLE AND REPEATABLE"
@Ben Lutz u trolling
@Ben Lutz get a life instead of worrying about me brother. you don't attack the OPRESSOR yet u attack your brother SMH.
@@bretzajac7986 RIGHT
@Ben Lutz and you claim believing a rat like land animal evolved into whales is not a child's view of nature?
Carpe Datum!
What is that?
Being that science cannot be all knowing they make no claim that truths are fully understood but rather provisional while a religion claims to have an absolute knowledge of the understanding of all truths. Being that I accept that my own understanding is limited I feel much more comfortable with the provisional truths of the understanding of science. How can I comfortably put my trust in the all knowing truths of a religion when my own limited understanding is not capable of putting my trust in such absolutes. At the very least I will not impose such absolutes on others.
Dennis Miller is as annoying now as he was when he did Monday night football back in the day.
Dennis Miller looks existentially terrified. Get over yourself dude, and listen to Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
John 1:1 HOLY BIBLE defines God as Reason. Logos as New Testament was written in Greek. Don't you believe in reason? No! We do not believe in reason, we know reason exists. God's very name means I exist / I AM. "Before Abraham was I AM " John 8:58 HOLY BIBLE. I AM Neil degrasse. You use God's name to state that you are a RATIONAL being.
Dennis Miller is not even close to the brain power of Neil DeGrasse Tyson. He thinks he is funny but is just sad.
Ya like when Neil said at 2.22 that we would "ALL" starve to death and only 22 seconds later he reconfirmed his genius by saying we would "ALL" be dead now...Brilliant!!!
Typical republican Dennis Miller.. only thinking of them vs the society
Religious/political leaders are not dumb or superstitious but careless nevertheless....Its their subjects that are being mislead....The leaders know how to (act) in front of people to get these responses...and somehow I think Neil knows this...(@Tim Terrell)lol...
I personally think that if there is to be a god, then the bible should be 100% accurate if he is the all powerful. Things were changed by Christian’s for a reason. Which for me personally makes it difficult to follow and believe
Bringing back proof of bigfoot is a suicide mission.
8:05 great question, not answered. The answer is yes, 'science' is a new religion.
Science is not a religion, it is a process. Religion needs to go away, it is no longer needed and it is causing incredible damage today.
@@seanjones2456 Absolutely, but I see aspects of science (the groupthink and the politics of science) following in the steps of religion/dogma. I think environmentalism is an evolutionary convergence of traditional religion and is a threat to (the process of) science. Even writing this I feel some back pressure; it is as if I am a heretic. And the process of science is far from a 'free market' of ideas; it is monopolised by 'big ed'.
@@fractalnomics I gotta disagree. Science has no dogma, it just happens to be the most reliable way to understand the natural world. The internet is probably the final nail in the coffin of religion. There will always be people that have been indoctrinated and others that are poorly educated, and religion seems to thrive in both of these groups. I look forward to the day when we look at any god the way that most of the world looks at Zeus or Odin. All of us are atheists about some gods, it's just that some of us go one god further.
It's painful to imagine that science will run us into the ground rather than take the Egyptian door into the light that they seek to understand
“Science” or, the scientific method, is the most reliable pathway to find what conforms with reality. It’s not an entity, it’s an action. By definition it can only improve with time. How will it run us into the ground when science produced medicine?
If physics of the universe is social it's certain to produce a God then us.
Damn larry has changed..
Dear Larry, pls leave another legacy by helping Gideon..see description, UA-cam, STAR OF BETHLEHEM 2029
I hope miller will become enlightened one day, right now he’s acting like a conservative trumpian corrupt mind.
@shean7890 what are you talking about?
The Dude did a book promotion interview with the author and this is a conservative corrupt mind?
shean7890 right now? He’s always been a conservative with an ignorant* mind
6:52 Look at all the burdens he put on the 40% of PhD's who claim a belief in a god. He says they must believe in a personal god who is involved in their lives and hears and acts on their prayers. He's saying 40% of PhD's are essentially Christian fundamentalists, which means upwards of 90% of PhD's are everything else, including agnostic.
The PHD's are not likely fundamentalists. Fundies believe that the Bible is absolute truth, word for word.
The first chapter of Genesis has several dozen contradictions alone. And don't even get me started about Noah's Ark. A large number of these people have never even read the Bible.
i love him how he make alllll araunnnd ... i can give u a secrect there is no god and neal just try to be polite :D
He is an educator, not a firebrand like Richard Dawkins. It is the right choice. Tyson doesn't turn people away from science in the way Dawkins does.
"Science has discovered" how do you discover something that was already there.
www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
Let's stop pretending that peer review works.
What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."
This raised a number of disquieting possibilities. Were these, in fact, seriously flawed papers that got accepted and published? Can bad papers squeak through depending on who reviews them? Did some papers get in because of the prestige of their authors or affiliations? At the very least, the experiment suggested the peer review process was unnervingly inconsistent.
What Peters and Ceci found was surprising. Nearly 90 percent of the peer reviewers who looked at the resubmitted articles recommended against publication this time. In many cases, they said the articles had "serious methodological flaws."
This raised a number of disquieting possibilities. Were these, in fact, seriously flawed papers that got accepted and published? Can bad papers squeak through depending on who reviews them? Did some papers get in because of the prestige of their authors or affiliations? At the very least, the experiment suggested the peer review process was unnervingly inconsistent.